Author
On May 14, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the mandate that a candidate for judicial services needs to have been a practicing lawyer for no less than three years. After finishing their degree, new law graduates can no longer qualify to take judicial service exams. The main reasoning provided by the court is that judges should gain real courtroom experience before taking their seats on the bench and making rulings.
Is 3 years of practice before judicial services fair or a setback?
It appears to be a crucial point for someone studying law and hoping to build a future career in the judicial system. Students like me often wonder if this is a positive move toward improving our justice system or if it just makes it more difficult for young people looking to join it. It appears logical on one side. Judges play a crucial role; they require a deep understanding of court operations in addition to legal knowledge. Examining legal documents and participating in courses contrasts with appearing in court, interacting with clients, and grasping the obstacles and difficulties of actual cases. Such experiences can help future judges become better prepared, more patient, and more pragmatic.
But on the other hand, this limitation is increasing the pressure on students as well. So far, numerous students have worked hard throughout their three-year LLB or five-year law programs to take the judiciary exams right after graduating. As a result of this new law, they will need to wait more, serve elderly clients, or start their own practice, which poses challenges for everyone, especially those from rural communities or less wealthy backgrounds. It raises questions about fairness too. Does this clause give priority to individuals with existing legal connection? What happens to capable and motivated students who may lack access to good practice opportunities? Would three years truly enhance a person’s judging abilities, or will it simply delay their entry with minimal improvement in quality?
Another question is whether this will result in a shortage of judges. The courts in India are currently struggling to manage the large number of unresolved cases. Certainly, the process of hiring will be significantly delayed if there are fewer individuals qualified to sit for judicial exams. There are examples from other countries where prior judicial appointments require many years of experience. Moreover, several prominent judges in India started their professional journey as lawyers. Nonetheless, a balance is necessary; maybe a strict three-year term should be constituted with a well-organised internship or supervised training.
The primary aim must be to guarantee that only qualified, fair, and properly trained individuals are selected as judges. We should all thoughtfully assess if that involves broadening experience or changing how legal education is provided. This decision acts as a reminder that accessing the judiciary will become harder for now, yet it could also make us stronger.
